Haryana

Panchkula

CC/296/2016

RAMNATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOMESHOP 18 - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	296 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	24.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.03.2017

                                                                                          

Ram Nath S/o Sh.Prita Ram, R/o VPO Mohra, Tehsil and District Ambala.

 

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Home Shop 18, through its Registered Office, D18/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

2.       North India Top Company (P) Ltd. c/o Acorn Warehouse & Logistic, Park 68, Village Kapriwas & Malpura, Taluq-Dharuhera, District Rewari.

3.       Karbonn Mobile Private Ltd., DSS 30S, Sector-20, Panchkula through its incharge/Manager.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

                             Defence of Ops No.1 and 2 already struck off.

                             OP No.3 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Carbonn K9 Smart mobile handset online through OP NO.1 on 14.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.3699/- with warranty of one year. After few days, the mobile handset started giving problem and the complainant approached the Op NO.3 on 03.08.2016. The engineer of service center told the complainant that the touch of the mobile needed replacement and asked him to come after 20 days. After 15 days, the complainant contacted the Op No.3 to know the status of his mobile handset who stated that the spare parts of the set were not available and suggested him to call after 20 days. Later the Op No.3 informed the complainant that the touch had not been provided by the company and to wait for some time. The Op No.3 also assured the complainant that they would contact him as soon as touch was available but to no avail. After 15 days, the complainant contacted the Op NO.3 who totally denied to replace the touch of the mobile handset and the same was lying with the OP NO.3. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice issued to the OPs No.1 & 2. On 06.12.2016, Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 and sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 03.01.2017 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 03.01.2017, due to none appearance of Ops no.1 and 2, the case was adjourned to 18.01.2017 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 18.01.2017, due to none appearance of Ops no.1 and 2, the case was again adjourned to 23.01.2017 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 23.01.2017, none appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 & 2 nor has filed any written statement. As per Section 13 (2) (a) CP Act, the opposite party has to give his version in the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding to fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. The OPs No.1 & 2 failed to file the written statement within stipulated period and defence of the OPs No.1 & 2 was struck off.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.3 through registered post dated 02.11.2016 and the same has not been received back served or unserved. The Op No.3 failed to put in appearance on 06.12.2016 and the OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record.
6. The complainant had purchased a Carbonn mobile K9 Smart mobile handset on 14.06.2016 by paying Rs.3699/- through an online portal and supplied the same by Ops No.1 and 2 with one year warranty. The said handset encountered with problem in its functioning and as such the complainant visited the authorized service center (OP No.3) for necessary repair on 03.08.2016. However, the complainant repeatedly visited the service center for getting his handset in question repaired within a short span of 2 months, when finally OP NO.3 having flatly refused to do anything further in the matter, through the handset was still within one year warranty period from the date of its purchase.
7. Pertinently, the OP No.3 chose not to appear before this Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. Similarly Ops No.1 and 2 after appearing through counsel preferred to remain absent from the proceedings of the case and did not file reply and evidence. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant and allegations leveled by him in the complaint, which are supported with duly sworn affidavit has gone unrebutted. Thus, in the absence of Ops it is believed that the Ops have nothing to say against the allegations of the complainant.
8. Evidently, the handset was handed over to Op No.3 for necessary repair within warranty period but instead of repairing the same the Op No.3 is keeping it in its possession till date and even did not appear during the proceedings of the present case, which certainly shows the carelessness of the Ops for non-repairing the handset within warranty period. The non appearance and non filing reply/evidence by the Ops during the proceedings of the case further proves deficiency on their part in providing service to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that above act of the Ops certainly caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, the complaint has merit.
9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Ops. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

a)       To refund Rs.3699/- being the invoice price of the mobile set to the complainant.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.4000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service and cost of litigation.

 

10. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

09.03.2017                          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                                                     MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT